The psychological factors mediating/moderating the association between body‐image disturbance and depression: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available evidence demonstrates that individuals with body-image disturbance (BID) are prone to suffer from depression. This systematic review provides, to our knowledge, the first synthesis of the psychological mechanism of the association between BID and depression. We conducted a thorough search of online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, for articles published up until February 2024. The final analysis comprised a total of 23 studies that focused on the mediating or moderating effects of psychological factors between depression and BID. This review identifies self-esteem and social support as both mediators and moderators of the relationship between BID and depression, while perceived stress acted only as a mediator. High self-esteem and strong social support as well as low levels of perceived stress may help individuals experience lower levels of BID, thereby contributing to a decreased likelihood of depression. Interventions aimed at increasing self-esteem, developing strong support, and decreasing perceived stress may hold promise to reduce the risk of depression in those with BID.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".